Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 14, 2024, 18:39 (68 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All the questionable evidence is secondary for a supernatural entity.

dhw: An atheist would say that all the evidence for a supernatural entity is questionable, and I’m sorry, but your response is no answer to my now bolded comment.

All of our evidence is secondary by studying our reality He produced.

God and human attributes

DAVID: Certainly, we mimic Him in unknown ways.

dhw: I like the word “certainly”. You are certain that he is “benevolent” but not “malevolent”, and you were once certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and you even thought it was possible that he wanted us to recognize and worship him. But then you disagreed with yourself, because you think your God is selfless. And you offer us a theory of evolution which you regard as imperfect and inefficient, but you dismiss efficient alternatives on the grounds that although your God “certainly” shares some of his attributes with us, he can’t possibly share any attributes with us because he is not human in any way.

To clarify your confusion, a selfless God produced us for His own unselfish reasons. Although entirely not human He can exhibit human-like attributes.

dhw: Either your God cares or he doesn’t, wants us to worship him or doesn’t, enjoys designing or doesn’t - all according to what we understand by those terms.

DAVID: Agreed using my proviso from Adler.

dhw: There is no proviso, since you agree that it is all “according to what we understand by those terms”. If Adler says there is a 50/50 chance that God cares for us, does he then question whether the word “care” has a different meaning for God than the meaning it has for us?

Yes, HE does. Our meaning may not be God's.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Of course they had descendants - as you agree:

dhw: Only 0.1% - the survivors of each extinction - “produced” us. The two examples based on your own beliefs CONFIRM Raup’s overall statistics (you say 100% of pre-Cambrian species were not our ancestors, and we know that 99.4% of dinosaurs were not our ancestors). Why do you reject your own examples, which confirm Raup’s statistics?

dhw: How on earth do you manage to interpret this as my agreement? How do you “make descendants” once you have become extinct? After each extinction, it is the 0.1% of survivors that “make descendants” (until they themselves go extinct, and the next 0.1% of survivors take over).

Still chopping evolution into slices. An extinct species is followed by a live species over and over.

DAVID: See todays' entry re distorted dinosaur statistics.

dhw: The new theory does not even touch on the percentage of dinosaurs that did or didn’t produce descendants. It simply challenges the belief that theropods were the ancestors. Do you really think the new theory is that 696 dinosaur species were our ancestors? And don’t forget your 100% non-ancestral pre-Cambrians.

No dinosaurs were our ancestors. The Cambrians used Ediacaran biochemistry, no phenotypic forms.

DAVID: The 99.9% produced nothing? Your inconsistency is appalling.

dhw: We are talking about your theory that your God designed and had to cull 99.9% of species in order to produce us and our food. Yet again: I asked. “Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? You replied: No. From 0.1% surviving. And now you want us to believe that we and our food are descended from the 99.9%, and you accuse me of inconsistency!

Still slicing evolution into segments.

Theodicy

DAVID: Exactly! Free-floating following instructions BUT then free to make a mistake!!!

dhw: Unless their instructions are to feel free to make a mistake, your comment makes no sense.

Yes, they have the freedom to make mistakes.

Under “Editing DNA mistakes” and “Bacterial intelligence”

DAVID: Why would a benevolent God deliberately create the chaos of a murderous free-for-all?

dhw: Since you can hardly deny that your murderous bacteria, viruses and humans exist, please answer your own question, which is precisely the subject of theodicy! Meanwhile, why do you assume your God is benevolent? Your answer: “I start with a definite type of God I want.” If atheists told you they started with what they wanted, you would tear them to pieces!

DAVID: They want no God and pure chance. Makes no sense, while a God who designs does so even if His designs have problems.

dhw: As does the theory of his existence, and even more problems are thrown up when someone starts off with the conclusions he wants and refuses to consider any other possibility.

Never your humanized God.